Author
Topic: I will not need firemen in the future..... (Read 8764 times)

Minus these last couple federal government unemployment bailouts, it is the companies (corporations and small businesses) that pay unemployment insurance to take care of the unemployed (laid off). The rest of the kids still live at home and it is mom and dad that take care of these kids.

Minus these last couple federal government unemployment bailouts, it is the companies (corporations and small businesses) that pay unemployment insurance to take care of the unemployed (laid off). The rest of the kids still live at home and it is mom and dad that take care of these kids.

Well at least there is somebody that knows the bottom line. The higher the unemployment the higher the taxes on the companies that are left. Moving jobs off shore is a much higher price tag than most people will admit. We will not come out of the economic recession if it continues and jobs do not return.

Something else you people don't understand: companies do not higher people who are way over qualified for the job. Their resume's are thrown in the basket as soon as they receive them. It cost money to find employees so they are not going to spend it on someone that will not be happy and leave in better times. My generation had the greatest opportunity's available to us of any generation in the world. Through selfishness and greed we threw that away and are now leaving our children a bucket of crap.

there is some truth to this. the sin of omission is not always a bad sin.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

My generation had the greatest opportunity's available to us of any generation in the world. Through selfishness and greed we threw that away and are now leaving our children a bucket of crap.

I agree 100%, I'm 62 and I believe my generation has probably lived in the best of times. I was raised in northern Michigan and I remember every weekend the migration of people living and working in the plants of southern Michigan going to their cottages up north. These were just plain working people with some disposable income. Since then, these resort areas for the most part have become low income areas as the working people could not afford such luxuries. I remember when if you had a job you had healthcare. If you had a job you made a living. When I entered the work force, you had the choice of going to work or going for a degree. If you worked a job you made a living and if you had a degree, you made a little more. The economy just seemed to hum along.Over time the gap in income between the working man and the so called "professionals" got wider and wider to the point that labor is pretty much considered to have little value.

Trust me it is not just labor, professionals are out in the cold too. The only group that is making out is the wealthy. They screw up, we bail them out and they reward themselves. Seems fair doesn't it. Now the new cry baby in the congress is out to reward them again. I don't know about you but my pooper is twitching.

both of you have stated facts and drawn flawed conclusions from those facts.

yes we have lost manufacturing jobs. why? first, what is the propose of business? it is not to pay you a "living wage", provided health care, and provided retirement. it is to supply a product at a profit. unions have made it impossible to provide product at a profit. it's not even wages that are to blame, for the most part. it is those other things that unions have demanded over the years. one of the reasons health care is so expensive is that it is very often provide though a 3rd party. any time you go through a 3rd party for a service, it is more expensive. with health care, the end user is not applying market forces to the product and the cost is higher. most union pension plans, besides having been robbed by the unions for things like political contributions, have ridiculous guaranteed return. again, no market forces and no responsibility by end user.

the other thing that makes products in this country very expensive is regulation.

one of the best examples of what both labor and regulation cost can do to a market, is housing. when i was a kid, a nice house could be had for around 8 thousand dollars. 10 got you a place with some land. you can't even buy an empty acre for 10 thousand now. why? several things. labor costs, regulations, and that very increase in "disposable income". unfortunately, the disposable income has not kept up with the increasing cost of labor and regulation, so more debt needs to be incurred to buy the home.we can see the increased cost using housing as an example, because it's one thing that can't be taken elsewhere. it's not that labor has no value, it's that the value of labor has been artificially inflated and has caused the inflation of all else.

acebird, you assume that because one person is rich, another is poor. there is no cause and effect. if i earn one more dollar, it has not come out of the pocket of someone who earns one less. the poverty level is continually raised by those on the left so that it appears we have growing poverty. in fact, the poverty level has stayed pretty much static. you also assume that poverty is a static condition. those who are poor today, will be poor tomorrow. this is not true. people move in and out of poverty all the time. the only people who remain in poverty are those who depend on the government to care for them. generational poverty is primarily found in the welfare class. the poverty level also fails to take into account all the stuff that those below the poverty level get from state and federal govt.

you talk about screwing up and bailing out. this is what we do when we reward bad choices with government programs. if does not matter which party is doing it, or for whom. it is just as wrong to reward people for making bad choices as it is to reward business for making bad choices. however, when those choices are forced on a business, such as the requirements by congress that banks loan to people who could not make payments, we are left with a bit of a problem. government caused bad loans to be made. does government then have any responsibility to make sure that those same financial institutions do not crash? or, should government get rid of things like Fannie and Freddy, allow banks that were in bad shape to go under, and do a reset? should car companies have been let to fail? how about airlines?

my gut says let them go under, but fix the problems that cause them to fail, if those problems were cause by government. if institutions like ford and welfare can be ok, then maybe there was no reason to bail out gm and other banks? don't know. guess we'll never know. i do understand why the banks were bailed out, but i still don't know if i agree with the solution.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

Really, how is it that some banks didn't have these bad loans or get bailed out and have no financial problems what so ever? How is it that Ford had no financial problem what so ever and did not take a bail out where as GM did? Both have unions. Am I in favor of unions, no. Did the unions cause the economic crisis, no. The rich bankers and wall street caused the crisis betting on a long shot. Are they to big to fail. Absolutely not. That is a crock. If a business fails it doesn't kill the market. Another business will grab the market and run with it. But if a big business fails the rich get hurt and there are only a few of them but they run every country including ours.

Quote

acebird, you assume that because one person is rich, another is poor.

Not really, there will always be rich and there will always be poor. What is dwindling is the middle class which was our strength in the past. When your middle class starts dwindling it never come back. Read your history Kathy, I thought that was your favorite subject.

Ford lived off the cash they had borrowed a couple years before. The government caused the banking problem by making loans too easy to get. Remember when people had to put cash down to buy something? The lowered capital gains taxes to force us to trade capital because it was cheaper than paying income taxes. Corporate taxes. I can not make money for the company and hold on to it or I have to pay taxes on that money. So if you want something (capital) you do not save cash for a few years and get it, you must borrow the money and write off the interest.

i have no problem with the lowering of capitol gains taxes. :-D neither will you as you get older.

the other part to the banking thing is that when the banks protested having to loan to poor risk people, the feds told them not to worry because the govt would back the loans. when members of congress and president bush wanted the finances of Fannie and Freddy looked into, they were blocked.

so yes, some banks were to blame and were greedy, but the majority of the blame lays with the government. banks, on their own, would not engage in some risky behavior. banks were forced to make risky loans with the assurance that there would be no consequences. now.....how could that go wrong?

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

i am not sure you have a good grasp of what happened. all banks did this risky lending. not all banks got in over their heads....for whatever reason. it was the RISKY LENDING forced by THE GOVERNMENT that caused the problem. it was NO CONSEQUENCES guaranteed by the government that caused the problem.

when you force someone to do something that they would never do on their own, and you tell them that there are no consequences for what you are making them do, you can hardly blame them for the outcome....

except: the banks should have stood up to congress because they knew what was going to happen. instead, they allowed people like barney franks to intimidate them. someone in banking should have had the nuts to stand up and tell the public. i do remember some people talking about it, but if you weren't following in financial publications, you would not have heard.and yes, there were a lot of banks that did not have their house in order. there were banks and bankers that took advantage of things for profit.

even so, it was the government trying to "help" people that started and finished the mess.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

No they did not. All the government did is dangle a carrot, make it easy for these banks to loan the money with incentives.

The government can not even tell the banks what they can do even after the government bailed them out. These banks are still doing what they did before and they will continue to do it until us dang fools stop believing that they are TOO BIG TO FAIL bs.

No they did not. All the government did is dangle a carrot, make it easy for these banks to loan the money with incentives.

The government can not even tell the banks what they can do even after the government bailed them out. These banks are still doing what they did before and they will continue to do it until us dang fools stop believing that they are TOO BIG TO FAIL bs.

your statements are incorrect.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....